It is not the forcing but this attribution – which is virtually certain to be utter nonsense.
The cooling to 1951 is the case in point – this is obviously internal dynamics and gives a false start.
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by AK
It dismisses it with an arm-wave. Far different than a paradigm based on it.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist
So again you return to semantics of the infinitesimally trivial. I argued that the starting point included dynamic cooling to 1951. Even if we accept that the unlikely convolution of quite likely and best estimate has meaning – the best estimate is still utter nonsense and you are still stuck on symbolic semantics rather than substantive if elementary science. And this is elementary. .
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by ulriclyons
I have worked it out years ago, I had the same answer as your link, which contradicts what you claimed. High solar is more La Nina and less El Nino.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by vukcevic
Attributions ?
Good correlation is not sufficient to determine attribution.
The CO2 concentration has highest correlation I have come across, but is it the cause, consequence a coincidence?
Almost identical in the ‘correlation stakes’ is the geomagnetic dipole, it leads the GT by 9 years and it is highly unlikely to be consequence. Can it be a/the cause?
It has 1940s hump, it has 2000s pause, but despite it, the plain truth is we do not know enough even for an educated guess.
Solar ?
Svensmark and GCR ?
Arctic vortex splitting ?
All far too nebulous.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons
“Nature: Hiatus in the stratosphere”
Surprise surprise. During the next cold AMO mode it may well warm up again.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
It’s easy to spot bias with warmists cheering on warm and visa versa. Disappointment when nasty events don’t occur like floods and hurricanes.
Can’t wait till a big chunk of Antarctica falls off. Supposedly cooling is even worse. It’s like stock market doom and gloomers can’t wait for the next depression.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
The first of the two Antarctic glacier loss links appears not to have mentioned even the possibility of geothermal activity as a source of increased glacier loss. It is gratifying that the IPCC author in the second link at least suggests that activity as a possible source of the heat. Given there were 2 studies in 2014 that addressed the larger than known geothermal events, I am curious why no mention was made of volcanoes as a culprit even in a secondary fashion in the first link.
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by Chief Hydrologist
Are we heading for a return to 1000 years of La Nina dominance and to a long term decline in AMOC? Beyond the cooler SST likely in the Pacific for the next decade or so – any prediction seems problematic. But the questions are there.
That what I said at the head of the thread as part of a discussion with someone much less inclined to make poorly argued dogmatic assertions.
The theory is that both the multidecadal variability and much longer term dynamical changes in the character of ENSO are driven by SAM and NAM which are solar mediated. The long dominance of La Nina parallels the cosmogenic record. Intriguing at a minimum for someone who has studied these things for decades.
But you don’t accept the importance of the internal dynamics to climate – climate shifts – insist that climate is very predictable – and that it is cooling – that we can’t get abrupt warm shifts in interglacials – etc. We have no basis at all for communicating. What say we call it a day.
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Mike Flynn
ATTP,
I couldn’t see any reference to H2O, or any weighted estimates of the other anthropogenic forcings. Where is mention of the heat resulting from the production of CO2, continuously, day in and day out? It supposedly shows up in the UHI, so it must have some effect on the global figures, surely.
It all seems a bit nebulous, doesn’t it?
In any case, there doesn’t seem to be any warming occurring at the moment. Are there any recent diagrams including anthropogenic origin H2O, or is H2O just assumed or estimated to be natural?
If land use changes are included, wouldn’t they have some effect on H2O GHG levels, or not? The IPCC is either a bit clueless, or doesn’t care much about details, as far as I can see.
What do you think?
↧
Comment on A global ‘Iriai’ in place of the ecomodernist neologism by David Springer
After you evidently begged Curry to delete my single criticism I thought I’d just repeat criticisms others had made the more or less echoed mine. Put on your big boy pants there, Chief. You own a pair, right?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
“We are in the pre-consensus stage of a theory”. So giddy they start using unscientific language. We ♡ arctic warming! We ♡ extreme weather! The nastier the better.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by David Springer
Do we really have to put up with a renewed flood of Chief Hydrologist’s bloviating stream of consciousness laced with passive aggressive put-downs for everyone who disagrees with him?
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by AK
The cycle is simple and easy to understand.
Yes, if you start by squinching your eyes tight closed to the real complexity of the data.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Jim D
You ignore much longer paleoclimate periods, like the Eocene, that were much warmer than now with high CO2 levels. These indicate that the saturation idea is plain wrong, which also is wrong on just its physics.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer
Chief Hydrologist | May 23, 2015 at 2:52 am |
"Just your own independently arrived at notion obtained by putting trend lines – on things that don’t have trend lines anywhere else in the real world – at <b>wood for dimwits</b> that less warming from the north east Pacific will cool the atmosphere."
Dr. Curry this guy is constantly insulting others here. See emphasis. Please put a muzzle on him.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer
Chief Hydrologist | May 23, 2015 at 1:56 am |
Nothing that Tsonis, Swanson or anyone ever said supports your odd placement of trend lines on the PDO at <b>wood for dimwits</b>. It is too early by far to suggest that the current cool PDO and La Nina dominant regime has ended.
I’d ask you what you think supports the <b>wildly eccentric theory that is unique to you – but I know I’d regret it.</b>
=============================================
You're not being clever, Chief. No one is laughing at the constant barrage of childish insults you pen.
Dr. Curry some moderation please.
↧
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
Of course, unless the Earth was continuing its cooling from the molten state, and CO2 was following the natural decline from the 95% at 100 bar levels earlier on, with odd exceptions due to natural events.
Possible or not? Maybe the CO2 levels follow the cooling?
Of course, there are no experiments at all which verify the greenhouse effect. Tends to put any greenhouse claims in the same boat as claims for the existence of a universal ether, wouldn’t you agree?
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by AK
You ignore much longer paleoclimate periods, like the Eocene, that were much warmer than now with high CO2 levels.
The continents were in a different configuration. The Eocene is irrelevant.
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by AK
Of course, unless the Earth was continuing its cooling from the molten state, […]
The Earth has been in equilibrium with internal heat production from radiative decay (and a very tiny contribution from tidal heating) since long before the Cambrian.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
